The Doo-Doo Chasers

Now I may not be able to tell you what happened on some cable television program or pontificate of what I think may happen on some contrived artificial reality show, but I am in a position to conjure and offer perspectives on other contrived non-events such as what is frequently called politics. More specifically issues of somewhat basic precepts of democratic centralism and constitutional republics.
 

I have been told by the brain trust in the vicinity of the Beltway that self-determination means nothing anymore, unless it is decided upon by individuals who have no stake on such self-determination. I say this because from the President down, seems that the SEO meter is running on a simple phrase that the referendum in Crimea is illegitimate and illegal, and even that as such, the United States will not (never ever ever ever even) recognize its right to self-determination.

This is not only sociopathic but also inconsistent with the plurality evinced in our own constitution, but even more so in the articles of confederation, the bill of rights as ascribed via the Treaty of Paris.  It is as if just by saying such, it makes it a fact or truism.

Since the PEOPLE of Crimea voted over-whelming for their independence from the Ukraine, every nut and bolt politician in the United States has been saying the same thing, which can be summed up by the statement made by Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, who openly informed the world that the Obama Administration would not recognize the results of the referendum in Crimea calling what Russia did as being “dangerous and destabilizing”. Thus by fiat extending the assertion that the population of Crimea has no right to conduct a democratic referendum via the ballot, to decide if it wants to remain with the Ukraine or join Russia.

Fascinating, I mean a constitutional scholar (in theory) asserting anti-constitutional beliefs. This when, if it wasn’t for Washington, and even the EU helping to overthrow a democratically elected leader of another sovereign nation (Ukraine), we wouldn’t even be in this mess. Moreover, what makes even more absurd in the logic offered for this position by the Obama administration, which for the record asserts that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimean’s. A funny and strange position to take when you study past U.S. history with respect to the South Sudan (all of Sudan didn’t vote) and Kosovo from Serbia (no Serbians were allowed to vote via U.S. dictate). 

Then we have the audacity (like hope) to ridicule Putin for what Bill Clinton did in in Serbia, Bush in Iraq, and by Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, and trying to do currently in Syria. Were we this up set in 1967 when Israel committed a real act of war when it took Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Jordanian-administered West Bank, or in 1981 when the same nation, Israel took the Golan Heights.  

The simple fact of the matter is that we, America, should mind our own business and tend to the home front where we have real interest and not just the plutocratic interest of the ultra-wealthy. From a historical perspective WE KNOW that the two elephants in the room that no one is really discussing are: (1) the historical US/NATO desire to be able to surround Russia militarily and (2) access to the Artic, in particular since all these international bodies being so concerned with ‘global warming”, have green lighted more drilling there. These folks have to contain the Russian military because it will be the only way they can try and get all of the natural gas it has as well as access the infinite northern border Russia has with the Arctic.

Again, the United States has no interest that is national in the Ukraine when compared to Russia. Not only do the Russians have a large naval facility in Crimea, the folk there do speak Russian and it was conquered originally by Catherine the Great. Moreover, Moscow is not about to invade Ukraine and we all know this, it just sounds good to make folk believe that should be a reason for us to be upset. Outside of that, what is our national interest in the Ukraine? Is it to spread democracy like we did in Libya and Somalia? I mean fact is where ever we try to spread democracy all we get is a lot of dead Americans, a destabilized nation, and large Blackwater contracts.

We should just stay out of this and admit our only goal is really western control of oil and gas in the region. The Crimean Supreme Council is already on record saying Crimea wants Gazprom to develop the peninsula's oil and natural gas deposits and not any western (US company).

This time we have messed with the wrong cat, a cat from a nation with conviction, who has very strong leadership skills, and even more than this REAL national interest in the region.  This is aint no doo doo chaser, this is Putin.

Gold Digging: Will Mali be Obama’s Afghanistan?

When I think of Mali, or any part of West Africa, I often say to myself, I had a ball when I was there in 1992 and 1993. At the time I was living in Owerri, in Southeastern Nigeria. And if you have ever seen the Sahel, what sticks out from a geo-political locution is that it runs from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea.

But the country, inclusive of the history of the Dogon and those who inhabit the Mopti river region of that great historic place, may be the location of America’s next war of western imperialism and neocolonial fervor. To top it all off, it will be carried out via the instruction of the first African America President in the history of the United States.

It seems that Obama drone wars will have to find a new country to target since the US will be ending its occupation of Afghanistan soon. And since the Administration’s war on terror has not ended, the obvious next place to send US and UN troops is Africa, specifically Mali. Now I know we have US troops in the Congo, Uganda, Somalia and several other nations, but I have an inclination that Obama will be in this West African nation soon.

All of this would have been unnecessary if the administration had not taken the actions via the UN it did in Libya. In fact, Mali was a stable democracy for the last few decades until we destabilized. Not only did it lead to arms from Libya flooding the northern region of the nation, it also leads to the influx of al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists in the North.

Some would say that I am making this entire up. However, I would say that they have not been reading or paying attention or worse, they do know evaluate historical actions that would make the suggestion that the Obama Administration would be supportive of Western military forces in Mali. The US in concert with the UN has conducted armed interventions (with support from Obama). We saw such in Libya where via the UN; Obama although in direct violation of the US constitution, never consulted congress to overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation. Even though it required supporting militarily, Islamic fundamentalist militants and Al Qaeda and resulted in the — ethnic cleansing and lynchings of thousands black Africans.

We also saw such when the Obama Administration and the UN aided in the violent overthrow of the President of the Ivory Coast although the nations highest court that he had won the election. He was subsequently replaced by a UN hand-picked Muslim central banker. This too resulted in the death of thousands most of which were Christians.

We are already hearing the administration and UN drop little hints about al Qaeda having set up in northern Mali, right next to Boko Haram in Nigeria. Not to mention the Islamic Maghreb, al Shabab in East Africa. Especially if the story is being laid out by Robert Fowler of the UN. In addition, Last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution “determining that the situation in Mali constitutes a threat to international peace and security.” The resolution also noted that the UN was ready to deploy an “international military force” to invade the country if such is seemed necessary.

Stranger is that this is all coming from the urging really, of the Obama State Department – that is the ideal of invading Mali - to prop up the interim government. The Obama administration has also been increasing military aid to leaders of ruling countries around Mali in preparation for the upcoming intervention. Not to mention that last year, President Obama ended all of Mali’s trade privileges with the US, citing backtracking from democracy in the annual assessment of benefits conferred by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) program. Funny, the way I see it, taking the limited benefits they had under the prior arrangements will only punch prospects for democracy farther away. Especially given he approved such with the South Sudan, who is in conflict with Sudan. Mali only exported about $7 million from precious stones, gold, art and antiques, while imports from the U.S. exceeded $40 million. But that’s right; the South Sudan has the plentiful Abyei oil region.

Funny, Mali used to be Africa’s democratic success stories, now it may be the next Somalia, or even worse – Afghanistan. If the President does involve US military forces in Mali, it will be a tacit confession that his actions in Libya failed and really served to undermine international peace and security., It will reveal to history that his Libyan interventionist policy was his biggest foreign policy mistake and that helping Africa is the farthest thing from his policy perspectives when compared to the old imperialistic agenda of raping the continent of all its natural resources while killing million via war, starvation, poverty and drought in the process.Yes Mali may be Obama's Afghanistan and all because there is gold in them their hills. Afterall, Mali is Africa's third largest gold producer after South Africa and Ghana. Mali produced 53,7 t of gold in 2009.

sUdan comes before sYria

First I want to give a shout out to all the African Americans out on the front line protesting against the horrible atrocities in the Sudan, especially those who have written diligently and criticized the President for his lack of attention toward that war torn nation. Not to pat myself on the back for writing about Obama and his lack of attention toward Africa, not to mention its descendents who helped him get in office, I have pressed the issue vehemently but only have received comments suggesting I stop “finding” stuff to complain about regarding our current commander in chief by his coterie of folk who protect him simple because of the color of his skin.
Last month, it took a wealthy White man to bring attention to what was occurring in Sudan. I was glad of the attention but was hurt at the same time that no one that looked like me was on the front row of this issue. I’m sure there will be many now, since the uncle tom gene that many of us possess is not a recessive gene and always stands out when Master does something to say it’s ok for us to follow masters lead.

This week, Sudan on Tuesday carried out new airstrikes inside South Sudan in around the village of Tashwin. This after Khartoum vowed that it would use "all means" against a three-pronged attack it said South Sudanese forces had launched against South Kordofan state, including its key oil-producing region of Heglig. These are a continuation of skirmishes that happened last month along the undemarcated and disputed frontier in the Heglig area, with each side blaming the other for starting the fighting.

The last time I heard the President even speak of the problems in Sudan was June of 2011. He was at the United Nations as his top envoy prepared to travel to the region to address the political and military crisis concerning the peaceful division of Sudan into two states. It was right after he had met with his top Sudan envoy, Princeton Lyman as representatives from northern and southern Sudan continued talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. All he did was talk and give some warning and photo ops.

It is clear the focus and interest for the present administration is Syria for they turn a blind eye toward Sudan and Africa in general. I am certain that they are aware that Khartoum fought one of Africa’s bloodiest and longest civil wars against the south - a 22-year conflict, which began in 1983 and left more than 2 million people dead.

This is what is so troubling, the visible inconsistency of Obama’s foreign policy. He says nothing for example about Omar Al Bashir, the dictator of Sudan and one of the worst mass murderers of our time who has committed genocide for longer than any political leader living currently. Obama is either hiding or intentionally avoiding this. On the one hand, it is easy for him to state that Hosni Mubarak , Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad must go but not Al Bashir, the tyrannt right next door to a ruler who was way less dangerous to his people comparatively speaking and way less monstrous -Qaddafi. When reality in the form of displacement, deaths and rapes supports that chasing Qaddafi and not Al Bashir is like “going after Mussolini instead of Hitler. “
Last March I wrote, “Not to beat a dead horse, but this Libya example is almost comical. The reasons proffered for intervention are even more fanatical, when we look at and examine the desire to protect the innocent. Maybe the innocent dwellers of lands endeared with oil reserves, but not solely the innocent. By that logic, worthy locations would have our attention. The Sudan where millions are having been displaced and tens of thousands butchered. The Ivory Coast, where more than 500,000 have been displaced and a civil war looms.”

Just last October, the President issued a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act (a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars) for Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not forgetting that as of 2010 the allocation of U.S. foreign aid from USAID to Sudan was in excess of $420 million. A continuance in the pattern of continuous involvement with foreign aid to Sudan for many years in which more than $250 million was given to the nation between 1977–1981.

But for the Obama administration, the fledgling democratic movement of the Sudan must be defended and preserved even at the cost of millions lives of innocent and defenseless civilians—children, women, and men. When he was a senator, in 2007 and 2008, Obama, was extremely critical of George W. Bush's administration for engaging with Khartoum. Obama even advocated for a no-fly zone for Darfur. Even his current U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice advocated military intervention with personnel on the ground. Also in 2008, then candidate Obama joined in a statement in which he demanded "that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end and that he would "pursue these goals with unstinting resolve." Not to mention a year later it was Mr. Obama, in a statement released by the White House who said “As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act; the government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction.”

The Whitehouse lacks an official policy toward the Sudan and to this date has not keeping his campaign promises, although Obama once said, "Sudan is a priority for this Administration" and "There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government." Barack Obama says that the US will apply more pressure on Sudan but his administration has caved to a flawed election. I guess assuming that such is better than no election at all. The fact is that the present administration ignorance and inaction most likely end in a new civil war. The last north-south civil war in Sudan ended with a fragile peace in 2005, after some two million deaths.
What is our administration’s foreign policy when it comes to dictators, tyrants, Africa and democracy? Obama claims he went to war in Libya because NATO was afraid of the threat of government genocide, while we see such real time in the Sudan. Now the Administration is turning its attention and rhetoric towards Syria; which I am certain is for the benefit of Israel.

I just want the president to come correct and say openly that he has no interest in addressing what is going on in Africa with the Sudan. That he and his administration has a lack of interest in the slaughters of Africans whenever it involve people with darker skin. The numbers reported that I have seen pertaining to Sudan is greater than those in Libya or Syria, yet the White House seems not to notice. Even in the dictionary, Sudan would come before Syria.

Obama Sends Troops to Another Oil Rich African Nation

Is it just me, or is it strangely funny and coincidental that over the past decade everywhere we sent US troops in which we aided in the death; killing or assignation of a sovereign foreign head of state has been in an energy rich country with vast amounts of oil and/or natural gas. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq and he was hanged. Kaddafi was in Libya and he was summarily executed. In Afghanistan, no telling how many tribal and regional leaders (since they historically never had a nation state with a central government) we have killed. And as I stated in each case they have what we need to paraphrase the great Biz Markie – Oil and natural gas. This tradition is continuing with the recent deployment of US service personnel to Uganda. Oil and Uganda? Yes.

If you didn’t know Uganda is sitting on tons of oil. Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago and according to estimates by the Energy Ministry, the African nation has over two billion barrels of oil. The British firm Tullow Oil operates three oil blocks in the region, and had sold off part of its stake to Total and China's CNOOC. But the sale was halted following the allegations of bribery. Specifically that Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi has been accused of receiving funds to lobby for oil production rights on behalf of the Italian oil firm ENI, which eventually lost its bid for exploration rights to British firm Tullow Oil. In addition, Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa and Internal Affairs Minister Hilary Onek have also been accused of taking bribes from Tullow Oil worth over US$23 million and $8 million respectively.

As a result of these activities occurring over the past few weeks, it is ironic the Obama has decided to intervene with the rebels he claims are wrecking havoc in the region and fostering social unrest. Obama notified House Speaker John Boehner, of deploying the mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa with the first troops reportedly arriving in Uganda on last Wednesday.

Truth is that the rebels are representative of the people just as those he sent NATO forces to protect in Libya. It was hoped that the discovery of oil would improve the economic conditions of the masses of which 51 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. The Uganda economy is suffering from a 20-year high double-digit inflation now at 28.3 percent.

Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006 and is scheduled to begin oil refining in 2014 . The 2.5 billion barrels of crude along Uganda's western border with Congo will be extracted upon the development of a refinery in a phased manner, starting with capacity of around 40,000-60,000 barrels a day before peaking at 150,000 barrels a day by 2016.

Many are unaware that Africa's exports of oil to the United States, largely from Nigeria and the dictator state of Equatorial Guinea, at rates almost equal to those of the Middle East. But again why now? I have outlined several factors including the suggestion of US intervention by, the International Crisis Group, which is the principal author of “Responsibility to Protect,” the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S. led NATO campaign in Libya. Even more coincidental is that billionaire George Soros is a member of its executive board and personally, just recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda.

Soros, via his Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, as well as other Institute advisors including Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, who also aided in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. As early as April of 2010, Soros’ International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and other lawmakers advising the U.S. military to run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture. It makes sense seeing that in 2008 a National Oil and Gas Policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil.

Like in Libya, the U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). In the past, the Obama administration has stated it would only deploy US troops in the Middle East, Africa or Central Asia to target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. Unfortunately this is not an apt description of the Lord’s Resistance Army

So why is it that all of a sudden we are sending troops to another African nation? Not any nation but one rich in oil? We know the region, which includes South Sudan - which became an independent state in July after a two-decade civil war with the government in Khartoum, is also one of the emerging oil-rich states producing 500,000 barrels per day. This account for 80 percent of the country’s untapped oil deposits: meaning our presence may provide for increased penetration by Western-based oil firms in the United States and Europe. We know that the U.S. was a major proponent of splitting off South Sudan from the central government, as well as supporting the secessionist rebel movements in the western region of Darfur.

South Sudan became an independent state in July after a two-decade civil war with the government in Khartoum. Sudan is one of the emerging oil-rich states producing 500,000 barrels per day. The oil concessions in Sudan were largely in partnership with the People’s Republic of China and other Asian and Middle Eastern states.

Uganda has yet to produce a single barrel of oil, but it is obvious that its presence has played a key role in the Obama’s administration via the influence of George Soros to intervene militarily to help Uganda fight the rebels of the LRA who are currently in the Central African Republic.

I find this puzzling since we had these opportunities before oil was found and neglected to get involved. Now we are and the only fact that has changed is that the country is now rich in oil and we want to get out hands on it. To do such, we will most likely kill another person in another nation who has the support to the people more than the elected government does.

Nec Spe, Nec Metu

An associate of mine who I have grown sincere admiration and respect for and a friend used twitter yesterday to foster a discussion regarding President Obama and why people would or would not decide to support him during the 2012 election. What I noticed was that people, in particular African Americans have a real strong conviction and evince such with passion. In addition, I also noticed that it was frequent that people would challenge individuals to “check their facts” or charge “racism” if one disagreed with the President or ANY of his policies.

As you may or may not know, I am a free thinker and a habitual call-it-like-I-think-it-err. Just stating this because regardless of race or political affiliation, or rather one is a racist or a punk (synonymous in my purview) - I call them as I see them. I was reminded of this when a fellow blogger called in on my radio show and indicated that it was funny to him how when I was writing about George W. Bush, my post obtained anywhere from 80 to 100 comments daily but that when I held Obama to the same critical standard, they dropped to less than 5 comments a post.

Getting back to my associate, the results of his forum indicated just how much as a populous we 1] neglect significance in being politically astute, 2] how defensive we get when the person (especially if he is black) is the politician we support and 3] how quick all logic is disregarded when the information or point of contention has a negative impact on African Americans in particular and is accurate.

For example, for me to openly criticize the economic approach of President Obama is tantamount to being an uncle tom, racist or something even worse. Albeit it has nothing to do with the person, his race and/or political affiliation, and more a dissonance with Keynesian economic philosophy, because I am an African American my position is untenable and unreasonable.

Even if I state what I agree with and approve of that the President has implemented thus far, I am still considered against the President just because I am in disagreement with a single policy. I was supportive of the administration’s efforts to implement tougher regulations that would have reduced the amount of federal financial aid flowing to for-profit colleges that prey on mainly low income African Americans. However, I eventually became disappointed when his administration caved to the industry’s lobbyists and their campaign against the Obama administration. I was able to applaud the first bill he signed into law on approving legislation that expands workers' rights to sue over discrimination and the fact that so far he is setting records for the number of women and minorities nominated to lifetime appointments at the level of the Federal Courts. Nearly half of the 73 candidates he has tapped for the bench have been women. In all, 25% have been African Americans, 10% Hispanics and 11% Asian Americans. He is the first president who hasn't selected a majority of white males for lifetime judgeships, far exceeding the percentages in the two-term administrations of Bill Clinton (48.1 percent) and George W. Bush (32.9 percent).

I was also supportive of President Obama’s $1.15 billion measure to fund a settlement for African American farmers reached more than a decade ago via the 1997 Pigford v. Glickman case against the U.S. Agriculture Department over claims of discrimination. This made it possible for approximately 70,000 African American farmers to receive cash payments and debt relief from the federal government. However when I question the decision to pander to #ocupywallstreet protesters and the same night attend an upper East Side DNC $35,800 a plate fundraiser resulting in $2.4 million added to his rer-election campaign from Wall Street financiers and call it hypocrisy, my position was vilified. When I spoke out against the President’s policy decision to ask Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other debt owed the federal government using robo calls I was condemned.

If I speak out and say I disagree with the Obama’s administration decision to waive legally mandated penalties for countries that use child soldiers and provide those countries U.S. military assistance, just like he did last year I am a hatter. The White House will issue a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act, a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars, for Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last year, the White House didn't even tell Congress when it ended the Child Soldiers Prevention Act penalties. Their rational was suspect at best.

The truth is that I have problems with the policies and not the man. I would have had the same problems if they were implemented by a man or woman, republican or democrat of any race and ethnicity. The problem is to be an African American and voice these concerns means accepting the vilification asserted in the opening paragraphs. Unfortunately, like politicians the people who support selected candidates do not use binary decision to make responses that respond to logic gates like computers and tend to ignore transient memory for better or for worse. As in football, they will accept a holding called missed by a referee if their team scores but scorn and excoriate the same referee that misses the same call on the other team.

This is the world of the astute and adroit individual of color who examines the etiology of the political actions (especially if they pertain to President Obama). For being objectives means we can examine and understand this dystopian political frontier as the malicious state it is. It portends a dark future in which all power is concentrated in the hands of a few turning our nation into an oppressive state. The sad reality is that the voting populous and pundits in their sciolism do not have a clue that for us it is “Nec Spe, Nec Metu” - Without hope, without fear. For we know that Bacillus cannot live with antibodies.